CentOS - Mar 2009 - CentOS VPN server for iPhone

So far, OpenVPN has been working very well for me. Unfortunately, the 
iPhone doesn't have (yet?) an OpenVPN client, so I'm forced to work with
what's available.

The options are: L2TP, PPTP and IPSec. If you were to install a VPN 
endpoint on CentOS, which protocol would you prefer? The condition is to 
avoid shabby VPN servers that make the system less secure. I've seen 
some PPTP servers for Linux in the past but I was not impressed with 
their security track record. I'm not necessarily talking about crypto, 
I'm talking about the way the application is written.

Another condition is ease of installation. I will compile from source if 
I have no other choice, but I'd rather avoid wasting time with that, as 
I'm quite busy with non-tech things nowadays. If the application is in a 
repo somewhere, that would be perfect.

Thanks!

-- 
Florin Andrei

http://florin.myip.org/

Florin Andrei wrote:
> The options are: L2TP, PPTP and IPSec. If you were to install a VPN 
> endpoint on CentOS, which protocol would you prefer?  
>   
I know this doesn't answer your question as put, but it may be worth 
taking a different tack and supplying whatever services wrapped with 
SSL/TLS instead - I guess it depends exactly what you want the VPN for.

Hywel.

Florin Andrei wrote:
> So far, OpenVPN has been working very well for me. Unfortunately, the 
> iPhone doesn't have (yet?) an OpenVPN client, so I'm forced to work
with
> what's available.
> 
> The options are: L2TP, PPTP and IPSec. If you were to install a VPN 
> endpoint on CentOS, which protocol would you prefer? 
IPSEC.

That's only a few entries in a file in /etc/sysconfig/network-scripts
away from a working solution >:)

<http://www.centos.org/docs/5/html/5.2/Deployment_Guide/s2-networkscripts-interfaces-ipsec.html>

Cheers,

Ralph
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL:
<http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/attachments/20090326/38408389/attachment-0003.sig>

Ralph Angenendt wrote:
> Florin Andrei wrote:
>> So far, OpenVPN has been working very well for me. Unfortunately, the 
>> iPhone doesn't have (yet?) an OpenVPN client, so I'm forced to
work with
>> what's available.
>>
>> The options are: L2TP, PPTP and IPSec. If you were to install a VPN 
>> endpoint on CentOS, which protocol would you prefer? 
> 
> IPSEC.
> 
> That's only a few entries in a file in /etc/sysconfig/network-scripts
> away from a working solution >:)
> 
>
<http://www.centos.org/docs/5/html/5.2/Deployment_Guide/s2-networkscripts-interfaces-ipsec.html>
Okay, so it's included with the OS and some documentation is available. 
Good.

Now, from a practical perspective, how trustworthy is it? I'm looking 
for something to setup and forget. E.g. I am running Postfix instead of 
Sendmail precisely for the setup-and-forget nature of the software - the 
security track record of Postfix is remarkably good, so I can use it 
without having to worry too much. I threw the server away into a cabinet 
in the living room, it's hidden from view, it just works, very much like 
an appliance. Minimizing the admin time is crucial.

Same with OpenVPN. Turn it on and it just works, solid as a rock, no 
excessive worries about nasty security bugs every three months.

I haven't used IPSec VPN with Linux endpoints very much, so that's why 
I'm a bit unfamiliar with how robust these things are, from a security 
history perspective.

-- 
Florin Andrei

http://florin.myip.org/

Let me introduce myself:

Robert Moskowitz, ICSAlabs, an Independent Division of Verizon Business 
Systems.

Security IS my business and I am a bit of a 'maverick' even in the labs 
on my positions. ICSAlabs is the company that certifies products: 
Firewalls, malware, IDS, IPsec, SSLvpn, etc.

Florin Andrei wrote:
> Joseph L. Casale wrote:
>   
>>> The non-standard port is a good trick,
>>>       
>> Here's just an opinion: Security by obscurity only
>> makes >you< feel good, it does nothing in reality.
>> Anyone sufficiently talented to hack a service in
>> order to gain root or do something useful would not
>> be fooled by that. Set whatever your doing up right
>> so that any false sense of security is not deemed
>> necessary.
>>     
>
> I've seen this before - when the non-standard port trick is mentioned, 
> somebody usually gets up and goes "it's security by obscurity! it
does
> nothing to protect you! it only gives you the fuzzies!"
>
> I think that's a nice example of pervasive fallacious binary thinking, 
> combined with an old tired slogan that by all rights should be dead by now.
>   
Binary thinking will get you 0wned in security. Defense in depth and 
raising the bar.
> First off, it's doesn't do "nothing". It does make things
a bit harder
> for the attacker. Not much, but it's not zero either. It does eliminate
> a whole class of attacks actually - the mass scanbots or the most 
> moronic script kiddies, which by the way represent the highest volume of 
> malicious traffic on almost any public network. If I can do something to 
> avoid getting 0wned by a pimple-face armed with a zero-day exploit and a 
> bunch of bots scanning the Internet for standard ports, by all means 
> I'll do it. I can't do this for a public server, which by
definition
> must stand out in the clear; but for private-use stuff, why not if it's
> not too cumbersome for me? All I need is buy myself 24 hours of respite, 
> until I get the patch, and the non-standard port may well do that for 
> me. Or not. It's a gamble, yes, like everything else in the real world.
>   
Just moving SSH to a high port, will stop a lot of traffic coming in on 
your DSL/cable link. When the bots find port 22, they start pounding. 
They don't portscan (at least not today), there are too many 
opertunities at port 22 for them. This is one of the first steps I do 
whenever I build a Linux system. It also cuts down on logging of all of 
those failed logins that end up in your nightly cron report.

Then I DO set up rate limiting using shorewall, but this does not help 
me much with IPv6 SSH on Centos...
> Secondly, nobody said that was the only line of defense. I do use other 
> mechanisms as well. That's how security works, by wrapping your stuff
in
> several layers of protection. You deploy several different measures, 
> working in various ways, and hope they cover each other's holes.
>   
Rate limiting on some services is another tool. Look for what makes 
sense for you and look at your total picture. Perhaps you only have one 
system that you tunnel into that gives you access to all others. So that 
one system is really hardened. But the others are not neglected, but 
perhaps don't need the same level of protection.

Yes make things obscure as one of the first steps and go from there.
> Lastly, there is *absolutely no security measure* that is perfect. By 
> the same token, we should not use firewalls, because they can be 
> circumvented by people who are skilled enough, nor use passwords, 
> because they can be guessed or brute-forced. And so on.
>
> If a security measure doesn't make things too hard for the user and/or 
> for the administrator (and it this case it doesn't, myself being one of
> the very few users and the sole admin), and it's not too expensive,
then
> it should probably be used. It's one more peel added to the security 
> "onion" and it's a plus, not a minus or a zero.
>
> Ironically, exactly the people claiming to give security "advice"
by
> saying this measure or another "does nothing in reality" because
it's
> "security by obscurity", it's them who, in my view, show they
don't
> really understand what security actually is. Brandishing a bunch of 
> slogans does not equate with being knowledgeable in this field. 
> Technical skills, experience, and a measure of realism and common sense 
> are required instead.
>   
What is the threat.
What is your risk.
What is the cost.

If any of those is zero, the product is zero. (per Dr. Peter Tippet, my 
boss).
> You may want to read about the various cryptographic algorithms - they 
> work, in essence, by "obscuring" the cleartext. The patterns are
still
> there, they are just made hard to distinguish from the pseudo-noise by 
> the algorithm - the better the crypto, the fainter the patterns. That's
> how some ciphertext-only attacks work, by looking for evanescent 
> patterns in the sea of seeming randomness.
> It's a scary thought if you spend time considering it, but in practice 
> strong crypto does work to some extent. But if it's just "security
by
> obscurity" should we not use crypto either?
>   
Now you are playing with semantics. IMHO.
> Yes, "security by obscurity" is useless when it's alone, but
it can be
> good if used appropriately and combined with various other measures. We 
> should put this slogan to rest by now, it's 2009 already. Sheesh.
And next year is the last that NIST says we can use SHA-1...

The END is near, the sky is falling.

:) Too much IETF discuss time. But boy did it feel good. Like the drug 
it is.

Joseph L. Casale wrote:
> > The non-standard port is a good trick,
> 
> Here's just an opinion: Security by obscurity only
> makes >you< feel good, it does nothing in reality.
> Anyone sufficiently talented to hack a service in
> order to gain root or do something useful would not
> be fooled by that. Set whatever your doing up right
> so that any false sense of security is not deemed
> necessary.
Changing port numbers will not stop a talented person who is intent on
breaking into your network.  However, it will stop (or at least slow
down) the script-kiddies, worms, and others out there who are just
scanning for misconfigured or unpatched applications.  Switching SSH to
a non-standard port completely emptied my log files of bad connection
attempts.  Now, if someone attempts to break in, it will be VERY obvious
in the logs where before, it would have been buried in all of the other
garbage.
> Prevent weak passwords, possibly use connection throttling
> etc etc.
Of course.  No one is suggesting that changing port numbers is all you
need to do.  It is just one more thing that you can do to slow down the
attackers.

-- 
Bowie

Dear Florian,
> So far, OpenVPN has been working very well for me. Unfortunately, the
> iPhone doesn't have (yet?) an OpenVPN client, so I'm forced to work
with
> what's available.
>
> The options are: L2TP, PPTP and IPSec. If you were to install a VPN
> endpoint on CentOS, which protocol would you prefer? The condition is to
> avoid shabby VPN servers that make the system less secure. I've seen
> some PPTP servers for Linux in the past but I was not impressed with
> their security track record. I'm not necessarily talking about crypto,
> I'm talking about the way the application is written.
You can set up a Linux box with Poptop (which is definitely the best
solution but maybe a choice), racoon (to use with the Cisco ipsec
client on the iphone) or openswan in combination with L2TP.

Best Regards
Marcus